RFP 15-001 RTA Corridor Studies

Southeast Michigan Council of
Governments
Regional Transit Authority of Southeast
Michigan
Request for Proposal
Corridor Planning Study
• Michigan Corridor
• Gratiot Corridor
RFP# 15-001
August 1, 2014
SECTION I. GENERAL CONDITIONS AND PROVISIONS
A.
Objective
The Regional Transit Authority (RTA) of Southeast Michigan was formed with the
purpose of coordinating services of the existing transit systems (DDOT, DTC, SMART,
and AAATA) and conducting corridor planning studies to enhance public transportation
options in the region. The RTA will study the four major corridors within their service
area covering Wayne, Oakland, Macomb, and Washtenaw counties and the City of
Detroit.
The planning studies will evaluate transit alternatives, phasing and associated costs of
alternatives. The goal is to explore how to improve transit in the corridor, improve
regional mobility, increase travel options and destination choices, and promote transitoriented development (TOD) along the corridor. The studies will evaluate enhancing
existing bus service, adding higher level transit along with a number of alignment
options. The purpose of the studies is to identify a financially feasible project to advance
into the FTA project development.
B.
Issuing Office
This RFP is being issued by SEMCOG, the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments,
on behalf of RTA, the Regional Transit Authority of Southeast Michigan.
This RFP is also available on SEMCOG’s website at www.semcog.org/Vendors.aspx,
and on the RTA’s website at www.semcog.org/RTA.aspx.
Technical inquiries concerning the project should be directed to Carmine Palombo
(Palombo@semcog.org). Questions regarding the Administrative procedures should be
directed to Scott Failla (Failla@semcog.org). Questions submitted by consultants and
staff answers to these questions will also be posted online at
www.semcog.org/Vendors.aspx.
Both may also be reached at:
Southeast Michigan Council of Governments
1001 Woodward Ave. - Suite 1400
Detroit, Michigan 48226
Phone: 313-961-4266
C.
FAX: 313-961-4869
Proposals
This procurement is subject to a financial assistance contract between the RTA and the
Federal Transit Administration (FTA). The consultant will be required to comply with all
terms and conditions under the provisions of Federal Procurement Regulations, 48 CFR
Part 31- Contract Cost Principles and Procedures.
An electronic copy of the technical proposal may be submitted to Scott Failla at
failla@semcog.org. Proposals should indicate the proposed scope of work, consultant
qualifications and experience, a timeline, and costs. Please provide a two-paragraph
executive summary. Bidders may submit a proposal for the Michigan Corridor work, the
-1-
Gratiot Corridor work, or both. Each corridor project will be considered independently.
The cost information requested in this section is required to support the reasonableness of
your proposal and is for internal use only. The data will be held in confidence and will
not be revealed to or discussed with competitors. Costs should be presented in cost plus
fixed fee format (governmental regulations require fixed fee to be limited to 11%).
Specifically, the cost proposal should include the job titles and names of persons who
will complete the work, including hours and hourly rates. Cost should be presented by
task at a level of detail corresponding to the Work Plan. See Attachment A for price
proposal format instructions.
Section III of this RFP identifies scopes of work for two corridors, Gratiot from
downtown Detroit to downtown Mt. Clements and Michigan from downtown Detroit to
the Blake Transit Center in Ann Arbor with a connection to Detroit Metro Airport. The
consultant may submit proposals for either or both proposals, but proposals should be
developed as independent proposals and will be reviewed by individual corridor.
The RTA has budgeted approximately $2.3 million dollars to perform each the two
studies ($4.6 million total) outlined in the attached scope of work. The consultant is free
to include tasks in addition to those defined in the scope of work if, in their opinion,
additional tasks are warranted and will lead to a successful outcome. Such additional
tasks should be documented in an addendum and costed separately from the base work
identified in the scope of work.
D.
Selection Criteria
The contract shall be awarded to the consultant whose proposal offers the RTA the
greatest advantage for the project B technical, economic, and other factors considered by
the RTA, as specified in Section II. The RTA has a fiduciary responsibility to consider
cost when deciding on a consultant. Accordingly, cost is a determining factor in the
selection process. The RTA seeks to choose the consultant which provides the most value
at a reasonable rate. The RTA reserves the right to reject any or all proposals, or parts
thereof, and to negotiate the requested services and contract terms with the selected
consultant.
E.
Proposal Receipt
Proposals must be received by SEMCOG no later than 5:00pm, EST, September 15,
2014. All proposals become the property of SEMCOG and will not be returned.
SEMCOG is a public body as defined by Michigan's Freedom of Information Act
(FOIA). Upon receipt by SEMCOG all technical proposals become "public records open
to disclosure" under FOIA.
Send proposals, with “RFP 15-001” in the subject line, to:
•
F.
Scott Failla at failla@semcog.org.
Type of Contract
Contract will be executed on a Standardized Contract Form. Submission of a proposal by
a consultant will be understood as acceptance by that consultant of the contract language.
-2-
G.
Non-Discriminatory Practices
RTA encourages participation by disadvantaged business enterprises (DBE), including
women business enterprises (WBE), and minority business enterprises (MBE). Please
include certification(s) in proposal.
H.
Selection
The Planning and Service Committee of the RTA will act as the Selection Committee and
will make a recommendation to the RTA Board of Directors.
I.
Schedule
The proposed schedule for this procurement is as follows:
Dates*
RFP Issued
8/01/14
Proposals due to SEMCOG
9/15/14
Interview (if necessary) and Selection
10/09/14
RTA Approval
10/15/14
Commence Work
Upon Notice to Proceed
Complete Work
Approximately 12-15 months after work commences
*Dates are approximate
J.
Cost Liability
All costs incurred in the submission of proposals or in making necessary studies, designs,
or computer benchmarks of estimates for preparation of the proposals are the sole
responsibility of the consultant.
SECTION II. SELECTION CRITERIA
1. Demonstrated understanding of the project
25 points
The proposal will be evaluated on the level of understanding of the scope of services as
presented in this RFP.
2. Project approach
25 points
Consultants will be evaluated on their approach to achieving the goals of the project, the
comprehensiveness and cohesiveness of the proposed approach, and the techniques to be
used.
3. Overall work plan and schedule
15 points
Allocation of time and staff hours on specific tasks will be evaluated.
4. Experience of the consulting team
15 points
Professional personnel will be evaluated on their ability to meet the terms of the RFP
relative to having the qualifications needed to successfully complete the project. Scoring
will be based on structure of the project team and staff experience.
5. Cost considerations
20 points
-3-
SECTION III. INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE OF SERVICES
Regional Transit Authority of Southeast Michigan
Corridor Planning Study
Scope of Work – Michigan Corridor
Study Description
The Regional Transit Authority (RTA) of Southeast Michigan was formed with the purpose of coordinating services
of the existing transit systems (DDOT, DTC, SMART, and AAATA) and conducting corridor planning studies to
enhance public transportation options in the region. The RTA will study the four major corridors within their
service area covering Wayne, Oakland, Macomb, and Washtenaw counties and the City of Detroit. The corridors
include Woodward Avenue, Michigan Avenue, Gratiot Avenue, and M-59, consistent with the findings of the
regional system planning process that was adopted by SEMCOG, the Regional Transit Coordinating Council
(RTCC) and the Regional Transit Authority (RTA) of southeast Michigan. (http://www.semcog.org/Transit.aspx)
The studies will examine various options to improve and enhance public transit on these aforementioned corridors.
The planning study for the Woodward Avenue from downtown Detroit to Pontiac is already underway. Gratiot
Avenue from downtown Detroit to downtown Mt. Clemens; Michigan Avenue from downtown Detroit to the Blake
Center in Ann Arbor with a connection to Detroit Metropolitan Airport; and M-59 from Gratiot to Woodward
Avenue are the next corridors to be studied.
The planning studies will evaluate transit alternatives, phasing and associated costs of alternatives. The goal is to
explore how to improve transit in the corridor, improve regional mobility, increase travel options and destination
choices, and promote transit-oriented development (TOD) along the corridor. The study will evaluate enhancing
existing bus service, adding higher level transit along with a number of alignment options. The purpose of the study
is to identify a financially feasible project to advance into the FTA project development.
An alternative analysis study was initiated in this corridor by SEMCOG several years ago. A report summarizing
the alternatives reviewed, the evaluation methodology and public comment is available for each consultant to review
at:
http://semcog.org/uploadedFiles/Programs_and_Projects/Transportation/Transit/Ann_Arbor_to_Detroit_
Rail_Study/DetailedScreeningFinalReport_20070718.pdf
Background work that was done is also available for review at:
http://semcog.org/AADD_AdditionalMaterials.aspx
Scope of Work – Michigan Corridor
Task 1: Program Management
The consultant will develop a Project Management Plan (PMP) and a system for project control including necessary
procedures for conducting the work and managing the resources; communications; budget and schedule controls;
reporting project status and progress; document control quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC); and
administration.
The PMP for the RTA will be updated as the project progresses through the study and will include:
•
•
•
•
•
Project organization – identify roles and responsibilities of key participants
Work Scope and schedule – establish the approach, policies and procedures for completing the study
Project management, control and monitoring – develop procedures for management of quality control and
assurance.
Communications program.
Quality management plan/procedures.
-4-
Task 1 Deliverables:
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
Project Management Plan.
Preliminary and final project master schedules.
Monthly progress reports and invoices.
Project QA/QC procedures.
Document control plan/filing system.
Task 2: Public Involvement Process
The consultant will outline a public involvement process for the study. The approach to public involvement should
emphasize the design and implementation of a flexible public involvement program to be developed with input from
the RTA. It must allow opportunities for continuing substantive input into the planning process, ensuring that public
concerns are identified and addressed and meets all federal and local requirements. The public involvement must be
effective, so that it results in inclusive public participation that is a major contributor to the decision-making process.
The role of the Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) of the RTA should be identified as part of this work.
Elements of the Public Involvement Plan will include, but not be limited to:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Interaction with the Stakeholder groups
Project Web site
Telephone Hotline
Media Strategies
Briefings/Presentations
Newsletters/Fact Sheets
Public Meetings
Attendance at committee and special meetings.
Preparation of meeting minutes and action item lists.
The consultant should anticipate monthly meetings with the RTA staff to discuss progress and identify decision points.
Three sets of public meetings should be anticipated at key points in the study.
In addition to involving the public, the process should also address outreach to federal, state and local regulatory and
resource agencies.
Task 2 Deliverables:
A. Detailed public involvement plan, schedule, and milestones for public involvement
B. Planning website
Task 3: Development of Goals and Objectives and Evaluation Criteria
The consultant will identify the specific problems that are evident in the corridor and develop a series of goals and
objectives for transit improvements that will address the identified problems. This work will eventually lead to the
development of a Purpose and Need statement as part of the future environmental work.
A detailed analysis of the existing conditions in the Michigan Corridor, from Downtown Detroit to Ann Arbor with
a connection to Detroit Metropolitan Airport, be developed. The analysis will include current and future land use,
traffic, transit and non-motorized travel considerations. It will guide both the development of evaluation criteria
and the alternatives to be developed and tested during the study.
The consultant will also develop a consistent set of evaluation criteria to be used to evaluate each alternative
developed. The evaluation criteria will be developed and summarized in a manner that is consistent with the goals
and objectives of the study. These evaluation criteria will support the comparative analysis across all alternatives
and the calculation of expected benefits for each transit option, and would include, but are not limited to:
-5-
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Mobility improvements (i.e. Travel time savings)
Environmental benefits
Operating efficiencies
Cost effectiveness
Transit supportive existing land use policies and future patterns
Financial feasibility
TOD potential
The evaluation criteria must relate to the definition of the problem; they must measure the objectives and they must be
easily translated. The evaluation criteria are needed to provide a basis for the public and local decision-makers to
compare the alternatives, leading to the selection of a locally preferred alternative. The evaluation criteria will be
developed at the outset of the project and presented to identified stakeholder groups for their input and review.
Task 3 Deliverables
A. Analysis of current and future conditions in the corridor
B. Report identifying problems
C. Goals and Objectives and Evaluation Criteria
Task 4: Develop Alternatives
The consultant will develop alternatives to be tested in the Michigan Corridor from downtown Detroit to the Blake
Transit Center in Ann Arbor, including feeder service and integration with existing services/modes. All modes should be
considered.
As part of this work, the consultant will define physical elements of the alternatives in sufficient detail to support
both the capital cost estimates and the environmental impact review. The transit service planning work will define
services of the project itself and potential changes to other existing services in sufficient detail to support ridership
forecasting and operating and maintenance costs.
The alternatives development will also consider a variety of factors, including, but not limited to:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Mode/technology
Ridership
Station location
Right-of-way availability
Development and TOD opportunities
Alignment definition, including termini
Intermodal connections (park-and-ride, rail-rail, bus-rail, kiss-and-ride, non-motorized access/egress, etc.)
Opportunities for connection to existing and potential new major trip generators
Maintenance facilities
Environmental impacts
Feasibility/Ease of Implementation
To ensure a well-structured set of alternatives for project planning, several key points will be considered:
•
•
•
•
The alternatives should include a no- build alternative.
The alternatives should include all reasonable modes and alignments.
Alternatives should be designed to address the goals and objectives.
The number of alternatives should be manageable, in the sense that decision-makers can understand the
implications of each and make a thoughtful choice.
The consultant should review the alternatives identified in the previous Alternatives Analysis report previously referred
to in this document as part of this work.
-6-
Task 4 Deliverables:
A. Report identifying the initial set of alternatives to be evaluated
B. Alternatives definition report including operating plans
C. Conceptual engineering products including standards, plans and profiles, typical sections, transit service plans,
and other project specific details
D. Meetings, events, exhibition and presentations describing findings.
Task 5: Evaluation of Alternatives
The consultant will perform an evaluation of the alternatives using the criteria developed in Task 3.
Before a detailed evaluation of the alternatives begins, the consultant will conduct a fatal flaw analysis to identify early
in the study process route and service alternatives that would be difficult or improbable to finance, construct, or operate
efficiently. The goal of the fatal flaw level of analysis is to limit the number of alternatives carried through to the more
detailed stage of evaluation. The results of the fatal flaw analysis should limit the number of alternatives to those that are
affordable, have a reasonable level of ridership, and meet the goals and objectives of the project.
Those alternatives that are carried through the fatal flaw analysis will be analyzed in more detail as described below.
Social, Economic, and Environmental Impact Evaluation
The consultant will identify social, economic, and environmental impacts of each alternative that comes through the fatal
flaw analysis. To facilitate this, the consultant will use ArcGIS, a Geographic Information System (GIS) to efficiently
manage and present the data. Only areas of potential significant environmental impacts (those impacts that could alter
the ability to implement the alternative, significantly affect costs, or otherwise significantly impact the desirability of one
alternative versus another) will be analyzed. The following areas and sources of data are potential impacts that could be
analyzed:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Contaminated Land
Hazardous Waste Sites
Natural Resources
Cultural/Historical Resources
Social
Noise & Vibration
Air Quality
Environmental Justice
Right-of-Way Acquisition/Displacements
Section 4(f)
Section 4(f) prohibits the department of transportation from approving a project that uses land from parks, wildlife
refuges, recreation areas and properties that are either listed or eligible for the National Register of Historic places
unless there are no feasible and prudent alternatives and that there has been all possible planning to minimize harm.
Treating transit as an engine for economic development in Southeast Michigan, the potential for transit orientated
development should specifically be evaluated both as part of the alternatives evaluation process and as appropriate
as part of the environmental review.
Capital and Operating Cost Estimates
Capital Costs
-7-
The consultant will prepare and report capital costs using the latest FTA Standard Cost Categories (SCC). Each of the
alternatives under consideration will have a set of conceptual engineering drawings, typical sections, station locations,
and a written description that provide the needed definition for each of the major cost components. These documents
form the basis for identifying the various infrastructure elements used to prepare the capital cost estimates.
Based on the service plans, the consultant will also consider the following:
•
•
•
•
•
Additional or special transit vehicle requirements
New or additional transit facilities introduced as part of an alternative
Service options, which become possible by virtue of the alternatives (for example, local/express service,
short-turn operations, branch operations, etc.)
Effects on existing transit services in the corridor (truncation of routes, conversion of through-routes to
feeder services, etc.)
Unique operations start-up costs (as opposed to those of a mature operation)
Operating Costs
The consultant will develop an operating and maintenance cost model to be used to estimate the ongoing operating
costs of all facilities and services identified in each of the alternatives. Using appropriate cost drivers, including
revenue, vehicle- miles, revenue vehicle hours, vehicles operated in maximum service and all other applicable
associated sub categories, the consultant will develop an Operations and Maintenance cost model. The approach
will be consistent with the FTA technical guidelines for cost estimation. The O & M models will be based on
previously developed models of transit and road costs and cost models from DDOT, SMART and the AAATA.
Average values from these various sources can be used to estimate the cost of operation of the proposed rapid transit
service.
Ridership Forecasting
The consultant will obtain the SEMCOG regional travel demand model and any updated data sets. For the purpose of
costing of this proposal, the RTA may assume that the regional travel model will be complete and fully validated for
2010 at the time of the Notice to Proceed. The consultant will obtain all input data, transportation networks, programs,
set-ups, and model documentation. The consultant will install and run the travel demand forecasting model to ensure
replication of the modeling process and results.
The consultant will also review the SEMCOG model structure and coefficients, network coding procedures, and the
validation results to assess the sensitivity of the new travel demand forecasting models to the impacts of new rapid transit
facilities. Any concerns with the model and its ability to develop appropriate ridership forecasts will be identified by the
consultant and discussed with the RTA and SEMCOG staff to develop an agreed upon course of action.
Assuming a satisfactory review of the overall travel demand forecasting model, the consultant will then focus
attention on the Michigan Corridor. The consultant will review the highway and transit coding assumptions for
accuracy. At the same time, the transportation analysis zone (TAZ) system will be reviewed in the corridor so the
existing demographic and transportation characteristics are appropriately captured and replicated in the model.
Using the transit service plans for each corridor transit alternative, both a current (2015) and a future (2040)
transportation networks will be coded. For the purposes of costing this effort, it is assumed that transportation
networks for the most recently adopted long-range regional transportation plan exist. The network coding will be
performed using the network coding specifications, and will also reflect any revisions to the network or zone system
made during the previous subtask.
The adopted SEMCOG population and employment forecasts (current and 2040) are used as input to the travel
demand models. Other model inputs, including costs (parking, transit fares, tolls, etc.), and other required socioeconomic variables will be developed for 2040, based on procedures developed as part of the current model update
effort.
-8-
The consultant will apply the SEMCOG travel demand forecasting model to estimate the total travel demand for the
region and the corridor for each alternative. Appropriate tables and graphics will be prepared to summarize the
results of the ridership forecasting.
Based on the evaluation criteria developed in Task 4, the consultant will develop the measures required from the
travel demand forecasting process.
Evaluation Results
At the completion of the technical analysis, the consultant will develop the evaluation matrix. The evaluation matrix
will summarize the technical merits of each funding alternative and illustrate the trade-offs among alternatives. This
information, combined with the input received during the ongoing public involvement program will be provided to
the Stakeholder groups. The presentation of the evaluation results and public input will be modified, if necessary, to
reflect their comments.
Task 5 Deliverables:
A. Travel Demand Model Enhancement/Development and Ridership Estimates
B. Capital and operating costs estimates, and transportation impact assessment.
C. Technical memoranda documenting assumptions and methodologies for social, economic, and environmental
impact evaluation, capital and operating costs estimates, transportation impact assessment, and the financial
capacity analysis.
D. Development of an evaluation matrix that will summarize the technical merits of each alternative and illustrate
the trade-offs among alternatives accompanied by a technical report that will assist the Stakeholder groups in
selecting a Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA).
Task 6: Financial Analysis
The consultant will complete a financial analysis so that the selection of an LPA can be done with a clear
understanding of its financial implications. Among the factors that will most affect the nature of the analysis are:
•
•
•
•
•
Presence or absence of dedicated state or local funds.
Local and/or state political factors.
Legal constraints (e.g., constitutional limits on the use of motor fuels taxes for transit).
Other transportation proposals in the corridor and region.
Availability of unique funding opportunities in the corridor, such as joint development potential, historic
station structures, potential for privatization or public/private initiatives.
The consultant will prepare a financial plan for the proposed project once the LPA and a preferred financial strategy
have been identified. Using the best available information on the RTA financial policies available, the plan should
identify ways to assemble up-front capital and ongoing annual deficit funding.
The financial plan should also consider the other capital needs of the RTA such as capital and operating costs
associated with other corridor improvements. The development and findings of the RTA Comprehensive Regional
Transit Pan, to the extent possible, should be considered in the development of the financial plan.
Estimate and Display the Project's Cash Flow
This subtask sets forth the initial funding requirements of the project, usually over a 20 year time period. As such,
this task forms the starting point for the financial pro-forma. Capital and operating funding streams will be
represented separately.
The cash flow analysis should include revenue streams. These streams can be impacted over time by the issuance of
bonds. The flow of capital funds would reflect the anticipated construction schedule or phasing of the project. The
timing or phasing can be adjusted as one potential technique for matching expenditures with available funds.
-9-
Operating funding for transit alternatives should include the following basic information:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Net yearly operating expenditures (net of all increases and reductions in service)
Net change in annual transit trips (across all modes and competing services)
Average fare, per year
Net yearly passenger revenues
Net yearly non-passenger operating funding (advertising, charter service, etc.)
Net yearly operating subsidy
For analysis purposes, the average fare, and the resulting passenger revenues will be consistent with the fare
assumptions used in regional forecasting model. Later on, it may be desirable to consider the financial impact of
alternative fare structures and levels, but when this is done, the patronage forecast should also be revised
accordingly.
Analyze Federal Funding Opportunities
Federal funding programs have become more complicated, primarily because of the flexible funding titles which
have been created, notably the Surface Transportation Program (STP) and CMAQ funding sources. These titles,
which are allocated to states and metropolitan areas by formula, permit states and MPOs to use funds
interchangeably across modes, but project selection is "discretionary" at the state or local level. For example, each
state receives a certain amount of STP funding by formula, but it is up to the DOTs, in cooperation with MPOs and
other interested parties, to determine, within certain guidelines, how these funds should be spent. This makes it
more difficult to forecast how much of STP or CMAQ funds might be available to any given project, especially
when it is beyond the time horizon of the TIP/STIP.
Perhaps the most useful approach to evaluating the potential for federal and state funding sources is to apply a
"reasonability" test to the various funding titles. Such tests would compare the potential funding required by the
project with the maximum potential funding available from the particular source. A similar approach can also be
applied to other federal funding titles, such as the flexible funding programs.
Develop Potential Alternative Funding Scenarios
Funding scenarios, including potential new sources, will be constructed and analyzed. Funding scenarios would
combine sources in such a way as to fully fund the project. This task is fairly straightforward, in that it uses the
results of previous tasks to combine various sources into one or more financing packages. The objective in
developing packages would be to find a balance between the various competing funding objectives, and to provide
decision-makers with a range of choices. Other innovative project specific funding opportunities/ sources generally
include joint development, special assessment districts, impact fees, other forms of developer contributions. A
general assessment of the general magnitude and likelihood of these types of funding sources will be developed.
Task 6 Deliverables
A. Financial Analysis including costs, funding opportunities and a summary of possible scenarios
Task 7: Select Locally Preferred Alternative
This task will include the selection and documentation of a locally preferred alternative and the preparation of
documents for New Starts Project Submission.
Based on the technical analysis and public input, the Stakeholder groups will make preliminary recommendations
for preferred alternatives in each corridor. The RTA will provide clarification and make available requested
information to the Stakeholder groups in support of their selection process. This preliminary recommendation will
include a description of the recommended facilities and services, and the recommended means to fund, operate, and
manage the facilities and services. At the discretion of the Stakeholder groups, the preliminary recommendation
will be transmitted to other agencies, units of government for review and comment. Based upon comments
received, the preliminary recommendations will be adjusted, if necessary, and the final preferred alternatives would
- 10 -
be identified and adopted by the Stakeholder groups. The RTA will prepare a Locally Preferred Alternative Report
which will document the selection of a preferred alternative and include a discussion of the trade-offs associated
with the selection of the preferred alternative.
Task 7 Deliverable
A. Locally Preferred Alternative Report
Task 8: Request to Enter FTA Project Development
The consultant will prepare the materials necessary to support a request to advance the LPA into the FTA project
development.
Task 8 Deliverables:
A. Application to enter into FTA New or Small Starts program and supporting documentation
Task 9: Draft Environmental Document
The Draft Environmental document will be developed in accordance with and is consistent with the requirements of
the National Environmental Policy Act to evaluate and assess potentially substantial and adverse impacts to the
human and natural environment that may result from construction and operation of the Locally Preferred
Alternatives (LPAs). While it is premature to speculate on the level of environmental document the LPA will
require, for purposes of responding to this proposal, the consultant should assume that an Environmental Assessment
(EA) would be the required level of analysis
Task 9 Deliverables:
A. Draft Environmental Document
Regional Transit Authority of Southeast Michigan
Corridor Planning Study
Scope of Work – Gratiot Corridor
Study Description
The Regional Transit Authority (RTA) of Southeast Michigan was formed with the purpose of coordinating services
of the existing transit systems (DDOT, DTC, SMART, and AAATA) and conducting corridor planning studies to
enhance public transportation options in the region. The RTA will study the four major corridors within their
service area covering Wayne, Oakland, Macomb, and Washtenaw counties and the City of Detroit. The corridors
include Woodward Avenue, Michigan Avenue, Gratiot Avenue, and M-59; consistent with the findings of the
regional system planning process that was adopted by SEMCOG and the Regional Transit Coordinating Council
(RTCC) and the Regional Transit Authority (RTA) of Southeast Michigan. (http://www.semcog.org/Transit.aspx)
These studies will examine various options to improve and enhance public transit on these aforementioned corridors.
The planning study for the Woodward Avenue from downtown Detroit to Pontiac is already underway. Gratiot
Avenue from downtown Detroit to downtown Mt. Clemens; Michigan Avenue from downtown Detroit to the Blake
Transit Center in Ann Arbor with a connection to Detroit Metropolitan Airport; and M-59 from Gratiot to
Woodward Avenue are the next corridors to be studied.
The planning studies will evaluate transit alternatives, phasing and associated costs of alternatives. The goal is to
explore how to improve transit in the corridor, improve regional mobility, increase travel options and destination
choices, and promote transit-oriented development (TOD) along the corridor. The study will evaluate enhancing
- 11 -
existing bus service, adding higher level transit along with a number of alignment options. The purpose of the study
is to identify a financially feasible project to advance into the FTA project development.
Scope of Work – Gratiot Corridor
Task 1: Program Management
The consultant will develop a Project Management Plan (PMP) and a system for project control including necessary
procedures for conducting the work and managing the resources; communications; budget and schedule controls;
reporting project status and progress; document control quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC); and
administration.
The PMP for the RTA will be updated as the project progresses through the study and will include:
•
•
•
•
•
Project organization – identify roles and responsibilities of key participants
Work Scope and schedule – establish the approach, policies and procedures for completing the study
Project management, control and monitoring – develop procedures for management of quality control and
assurance.
Communications program.
Quality management plan/procedures.
Task 1 Deliverables:
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
Project Management Plan.
Preliminary and final project master schedules.
Monthly progress reports and invoices.
Project QA/QC procedures.
Document control plan/filing system.
Task 2: Public Involvement Process
The consultant will outline a public involvement process for the study. The approach to public involvement should
emphasize the design and implementation of a flexible public involvement program to be developed with input from
the RTA. It must allow opportunities for continuing substantive input into the planning process, ensuring that public
concerns are identified and addressed and meets all federal and local requirements. The public involvement must be
effective, so that it results in inclusive public participation that is a major contributor to the decision-making process.
The role of the Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) of the RTA should be identified as part of this work.
Elements of the Public Involvement Plan will include, but not be limited to:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Interaction with the Stakeholder groups
Project Web site
Telephone Hotline
Media Strategies
Briefings/Presentations
Newsletters/Fact Sheets
Public Meetings
Attendance at committee and special meetings.
Preparation of meeting minutes and action item lists.
The consultant should anticipate monthly meetings with the RTA staff to discuss progress and identify decision points.
Three sets of public meetings should be anticipated at key points in the study.
- 12 -
In addition to involving the public, the process should also address outreach to federal, state and local regulatory and
resource agencies.
Task 2 Deliverables:
C. Detailed public involvement plan, schedule, and milestones for public involvement
D. Planning website
Task 3: Development of Goals and Objectives and Evaluation Criteria
The consultant will identify the specific problems that are evident in the corridor and develop a series of goals and
objectives for transit improvements that will address the identified problems. This work will eventually lead to the
development of a Purpose and Need statement as part of the future environmental work.
A detailed analysis of the existing conditions in the Gratiot Corridor, from Detroit to Mt. Clements will be
developed. The analysis will include current and future land use, traffic, transit and non-motorized travel
considerations. It will guide both the development of evaluation criteria and the alternatives to be developed and
tested during the study.
The consultant will also develop a consistent set of evaluation criteria to be used to evaluate each alternative
developed. The evaluation criteria will be developed and summarized in a manner that is consistent with the goals
and objectives of the study. These evaluation criteria will support the comparative analysis across all alternatives
and the calculation of expected benefits for each transit option, and would include, but are not limited to:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Mobility improvements (i.e. Travel time savings)
Environmental benefits
Operating efficiencies
Cost effectiveness
Transit supportive existing land use policies and future patterns
Financial feasibility
TOD potential
The evaluation criteria must relate to the definition of the problem; they must measure the objectives and they must be
easily translated. The evaluation criteria are needed to provide a basis for the public and local decision-makers to
compare the alternatives, leading to the selection of a locally preferred alternative. The evaluation criteria will be
developed at the outset of the project and presented to identified stakeholder groups for their input and review.
Task 3 Deliverables
D. Analysis of current and future conditions in the corridor
E. Report identifying problems
F. Goals and Objectives and Evaluation Criteria
Task 4: Develop Alternatives
The consultant will develop alternatives to be tested in the Gratiot Corridor from downtown Detroit to downtown Mt.
Clemens, including feeder service and integration with existing services/modes. All modes should be considered.
As part of this work, the consultant will define physical elements of the alternatives in sufficient detail to support
both the capital cost estimates and the environmental impact review. The transit service planning work will define
services of the project itself and potential changes to other existing services in sufficient detail to support ridership
forecasting and operating and maintenance costs.
The alternatives development will also consider a variety of factors, including, but not limited to:
- 13 -
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Mode/technology
Ridership
Station location
Right-of-way availability
Development and TOD opportunities
Alignment definition, including termini
Intermodal connections (park-and-ride, rail-rail, bus-rail, kiss-and-ride, non-motorized access/egress, etc.)
Opportunities for connection to existing and potential new major trip generators
Maintenance facilities
Environmental impacts
Feasibility/Ease of Implementation
To ensure a well-structured set of alternatives for project planning, several key points will be considered:
•
•
•
•
The alternatives should include a no- build alternative.
The alternatives should include all reasonable modes and alignments.
Alternatives should be designed to address the goals and objectives.
The number of alternatives should be manageable, in the sense that decision-makers can understand the
implications of each and make a thoughtful choice.
Task 4 Deliverables:
E. Report identifying the initial set of alternatives to be evaluated
F. Alternatives definition report including operating plans
G. Conceptual engineering products including standards, plans and profiles, typical sections, transit service plans,
and other project specific details
H. Meetings, events, exhibition and presentations describing findings.
Task 5: Evaluation of Alternatives
The consultant will perform an evaluation of the alternatives using the criteria developed in Task 3.
Before a detailed evaluation of the alternatives begins, the consultant will conduct a fatal flaw analysis to identify early
in the study process route and service alternatives that would be difficult or improbable to finance, construct, or operate
efficiently. The goal of the fatal flaw level of analysis is to limit the number of alternatives carried through to the more
detailed stage of evaluation. The results of the fatal flaw analysis should limit the number of alternatives to those that are
affordable, have a reasonable level of ridership, and meet the goals and objectives of the project.
Those alternatives that are carried through the fatal flaw analysis will be analyzed in more detail as described below.
Social, Economic, and Environmental Impact Evaluation
The consultant will identify social, economic, and environmental impacts of each alternative that comes through the fatal
flaw analysis. To facilitate this, the consultant will use ArcGIS, a Geographic Information System (GIS) to efficiently
manage and present the data. Only areas of potential significant environmental impacts (those impacts that could alter
the ability to implement the alternative, significantly affect costs, or otherwise significantly impact the desirability of one
alternative versus another) will be analyzed. The following areas and sources of data are potential impacts that could be
analyzed:
•
•
•
•
•
Contaminated Land
Hazardous Waste Sites
Natural Resources
Cultural/Historical Resources
Social
- 14 -
•
•
•
•
•
Noise & Vibration
Air Quality
Environmental Justice
Right-of-Way Acquisition/Displacements
Section 4(f)
Section 4(f) prohibits the department of transportation from approving a project that uses land from parks, wildlife
refuges, recreation areas and properties that are either listed or eligible for the National Register of Historic places
unless there are no feasible and prudent alternatives and that there has been all possible planning to minimize harm.
Treating transit as an engine for economic development in Southeast Michigan, the potential for transit orientated
development should specifically be evaluated both as part of the alternatives evaluation process and as appropriate
as part of the environmental review.
Capital and Operating Cost Estimates
Capital Costs
The consultant will prepare and report capital costs using the latest FTA Standard Cost Categories (SCC). Each of the
alternatives under consideration will have a set of conceptual engineering drawings, typical sections, station locations,
and a written description that provide the needed definition for each of the major cost components. These documents
form the basis for identifying the various infrastructure elements used to prepare the capital cost estimates.
Based on the service plans, the consultant will also consider the following:
•
•
•
•
•
Additional or special transit vehicle requirements
New or additional transit facilities introduced as part of an alternative
Service options, which become possible by virtue of the alternatives (for example, local/express service,
short-turn operations, branch operations, etc.)
Effects on existing transit services in the corridor (truncation of routes, conversion of through-routes to
feeder services, etc.)
Unique operations start-up costs (as opposed to those of a mature operation)
Operating Costs
The consultant will develop an operating and maintenance cost model to be used to estimate the ongoing operating
costs of all facilities and services identified in each of the alternatives. Using appropriate cost drivers, including
revenue, vehicle- miles, revenue vehicle hours, vehicles operated in maximum service and all other applicable
associated sub categories, the consultant will develop an Operations and Maintenance cost model. The approach
will be consistent with the FTA technical guidelines for cost estimation. The O & M models will be based on
previously developed models of transit and road costs and cost models from DDOT, SMART and the AAATA.
Average values from these various sources can be used to estimate the cost of operation of the proposed rapid transit
service.
Ridership Forecasting
The consultant will obtain the SEMCOG regional travel demand model and any updated data sets. For the purpose of
costing of this proposal, the RTA may assume that the regional travel model will be complete and fully validated for
2010 at the time of the Notice to Proceed. The consultant will obtain all input data, transportation networks, programs,
set-ups, and model documentation. The consultant will install and run the travel demand forecasting model to ensure
replication of the modeling process and results.
The consultant will also review the SEMCOG model structure and coefficients, network coding procedures, and the
validation results to assess the sensitivity of the new travel demand forecasting models to the impacts of new rapid transit
- 15 -
facilities. Any concerns with the model and its ability to develop appropriate ridership forecasts will be identified by the
consultant and discussed with the RTA and SEMCOG staff to develop an agreed upon course of action.
Assuming a satisfactory review of the overall travel demand forecasting model, the consultant will then focus
attention on the Gratiot Corridor. The consultant will review the highway and transit coding assumptions for
accuracy. At the same time, the transportation analysis zone (TAZ) system will be reviewed in the corridor so the
existing demographic and transportation characteristics are appropriately captured and replicated in the model.
Using the transit service plans for each corridor transit alternative, both a current (2015) and a future (2040)
transportation networks will be coded. For the purposes of costing this effort, it is assumed that transportation
networks for the most recently adopted long-range regional transportation plan exist. The network coding will be
performed using the network coding specifications, and will also reflect any revisions to the network or zone system
made during the previous subtask.
The adopted SEMCOG population and employment forecasts (current and 2040) are used as input to the travel
demand models. Other model inputs, including costs (parking, transit fares, tolls, etc.), and other required socioeconomic variables will be developed for 2040, based on procedures developed as part of the current model update
effort.
The consultant will apply the SEMCOG travel demand forecasting model to estimate the total travel demand for the
region and the corridor for each alternative. Appropriate tables and graphics will be prepared to summarize the
results of the ridership forecasting.
Based on the evaluation criteria developed in Task 4, the consultant will develop the measures required from the
travel demand forecasting process.
Recent travel demand forecast work by SEMCOG on the Woodward Study identified an alternative approach to the
traditional method describe above. The preparation of travel forecasts for the Woodward Corridor BRT project
relied upon an incremental logit model, or data driven, approach. Given the nature of this high ridership, urban
corridor and availability of the 2010 on-board rider survey data, implementation of a data driven approach was
considered a very reliable forecasting tool and a method that could completed in a very short time frame. The typical
application of mode choice models might be termed a "synthetic" technique because the projected mode shares are
estimated entirely on the basis of the characteristics of the transit system and its potential users. An alternative
method of applying these models is in an "incremental" fashion that begins with existing mode shares and modifies
these baseline values based on changes in the characteristics of the transit network. The principal advantages of this
technique are that (1) it uses observed, measured mode shares and travel patterns, and (2) that it requires
descriptions of only those aspects of the system that are anticipated to change.
Considerable work was invested in analysis and evaluation of the on-board rider survey data. Network
representation procedures and path parameters were adjusted to insure a close comparison between observed
ridership levels and those obtained through assignment of survey trip matrices. Specification and design of the
incremental logit model was consistent with the regional mode choice model and followed accepted FTA guidelines
for the magnitude of all coefficients and their inter-relationships.
Evaluation Results
At the completion of the technical analysis, the consultant will develop the evaluation matrix. The evaluation matrix
will summarize the technical merits of each funding alternative and illustrate the trade-offs among alternatives. This
information, combined with the input received during the ongoing public involvement program will be provided to
the Stakeholder groups. The presentation of the evaluation results and public input will be modified, if necessary, to
reflect their comments.
Task 5 Deliverables:
E. Travel Demand Model Enhancement/Development and Ridership Estimates
F. Capital and operating costs estimates, and transportation impact assessment.
- 16 -
G. Technical memoranda documenting assumptions and methodologies for social, economic, and environmental
impact evaluation, capital and operating costs estimates, transportation impact assessment, and the financial
capacity analysis.
H. Development of an evaluation matrix that will summarize the technical merits of each alternative and illustrate
the trade-offs among alternatives accompanied by a technical report that will assist the Stakeholder groups in
selecting a Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA).
Task 6: Financial Analysis
The consultant will complete a financial analysis so that the selection of an LPA can be done with a clear
understanding of its financial implications. Among the factors that will most affect the nature of the analysis are:
•
•
•
•
•
Presence or absence of dedicated state or local funds.
Local and/or state political factors.
Legal constraints (e.g., constitutional limits on the use of motor fuels taxes for transit).
Other transportation proposals in the corridor and region.
Availability of unique funding opportunities in the corridor, such as joint development potential, historic
station structures, potential for privatization or public/private initiatives.
The consultant will prepare a financial plan for the proposed project once the LPA and a preferred financial strategy
have been identified. Using the best available information on the RTA financial policies available, the plan should
identify ways to assemble up-front capital and ongoing annual deficit funding.
The financial plan should also consider the other capital needs of the RTA such as capital and operating costs
associated with other corridor improvements. The development and findings of the RTA Comprehensive Regional
Transit Pan, to the extent possible, should be considered in the development of the financial plan.
Estimate and Display the Project's Cash Flow
This subtask sets forth the initial funding requirements of the project, usually over a 20 year time period. As such,
this task forms the starting point for the financial pro-forma. Capital and operating funding streams will be
represented separately.
The cash flow analysis should include revenue streams. These streams can be impacted over time by the issuance of
bonds. The flow of capital funds would reflect the anticipated construction schedule or phasing of the project. The
timing or phasing can be adjusted as one potential technique for matching expenditures with available funds.
Operating funding for transit alternatives should include the following basic information:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Net yearly operating expenditures (net of all increases and reductions in service)
Net change in annual transit trips (across all modes and competing services)
Average fare, per year
Net yearly passenger revenues
Net yearly non-passenger operating funding (advertising, charter service, etc.)
Net yearly operating subsidy
For analysis purposes, the average fare, and the resulting passenger revenues will be consistent with the fare
assumptions used in regional forecasting model. Later on, it may be desirable to consider the financial impact of
alternative fare structures and levels, but when this is done, the patronage forecast should also be revised
accordingly.
Analyze Federal Funding Opportunities
Federal funding programs have become more complicated, primarily because of the flexible funding titles which
have been created, notably the Surface Transportation Program (STP) and CMAQ funding sources. These titles,
which are allocated to states and metropolitan areas by formula, permit states and MPOs to use funds
interchangeably across modes, but project selection is "discretionary" at the state or local level. For example, each
- 17 -
state receives a certain amount of STP funding by formula, but it is up to the DOTs, in cooperation with MPOs and
other interested parties, to determine, within certain guidelines, how these funds should be spent. This makes it
more difficult to forecast how much of STP or CMAQ funds might be available to any given project, especially
when it is beyond the time horizon of the TIP/STIP.
Perhaps the most useful approach to evaluating the potential for federal and state funding sources is to apply a
"reasonability" test to the various funding titles. Such tests would compare the potential funding required by the
project with the maximum potential funding available from the particular source. A similar approach can also be
applied to other federal funding titles, such as the flexible funding programs.
Develop Potential Alternative Funding Scenarios
Funding scenarios, including potential new sources, will be constructed and analyzed. Funding scenarios would
combine sources in such a way as to fully fund the project. This task is fairly straightforward, in that it uses the
results of previous tasks to combine various sources into one or more financing packages. The objective in
developing packages would be to find a balance between the various competing funding objectives, and to provide
decision-makers with a range of choices. Other innovative project specific funding opportunities/ sources generally
include joint development, special assessment districts, impact fees, other forms of developer contributions. A
general assessment of the general magnitude and likelihood of these types of funding sources will be developed.
Task 6 Deliverables
B. Financial Analysis including costs, funding opportunities and a summary of possible scenarios
Task 7: Select Locally Preferred Alternative
This task will include the selection and documentation of a locally preferred alternative and the preparation of
documents for New Starts Project Submission.
Based on the technical analysis and public input, the Stakeholder groups will make preliminary recommendations
for preferred alternatives in each corridor. The RTA will provide clarification and make available requested
information to the Stakeholder groups in support of their selection process. This preliminary recommendation will
include a description of the recommended facilities and services, and the recommended means to fund, operate, and
manage the facilities and services. At the discretion of the Stakeholder groups, the preliminary recommendation
will be transmitted to other agencies, units of government for review and comment. Based upon comments
received, the preliminary recommendations will be adjusted, if necessary, and the final preferred alternatives would
be identified and adopted by the Stakeholder groups. The RTA will prepare a Locally Preferred Alternative Report
which will document the selection of a preferred alternative and include a discussion of the trade-offs associated
with the selection of the preferred alternative.
Task 7 Deliverable
B. Locally Preferred Alternative Report
Task 8: Request to Enter FTA Project Development
The consultant will prepare the materials necessary to support a request to advance the LPA into the FTA project
development.
Task 8 Deliverables:
B. Application to enter into FTA New or Small Starts program and supporting documentation
- 18 -
Task 9: Draft Environmental Document
The Draft Environmental document will be developed in accordance with and is consistent with the requirements of
the National Environmental Policy Act to evaluate and assess potentially substantial and adverse impacts to the
human and natural environment that may result from construction and operation of the Locally Preferred
Alternatives (LPAs). While it is premature to speculate on the level of environmental document the LPA will
require, for purposes of responding to this proposal, the consultant should assume that an Environmental Assessment
(EA) would be the required level of analysis
Task 9 Deliverables:
B. Draft Environmental Document
- 19 -
Attachment A
PRICE PROPOSAL INSTRUCTIONS
The Price Proposal shall be divided into two parts, as follows:
1.
2.
Derivation of Cost – Prime Consultant
Derivation of Cost – Sub-Consultant(s)
DERIVATION OF COST - PRIME CONSULTANT:
Attached is a sample layout for the prime consultant’s proposed costs. These costs are broken out
into direct labor, overhead, direct costs, fixed fee, and concluding with a total estimated cost.
Direct Labor – Indicate each labor classification, the estimated hours for that classification, the
related hourly rate for that classification, and the dollar total for that classification. At the bottom
of the Direct Labor portion of the sheet, indicate the total hours and dollars for direct labor.
Overhead – Indicate the overhead rate being applied against direct labor. At the right, indicate
the total overhead in dollars that results from the multiplication of the rate times the direct labor
cost shown on this page.
Direct Expenses – List the direct expenses with a brief description of the expense and the actual
cost of the purchase of that item. Indicate the total of these direct expenses at the bottom right of
this portion of the sheet.
Fixed Fee – Indicate the fixed fee percentage for this project. This fee is to be applied against
direct labor and overhead only, not against direct expenses. At the right, indicate the total of this
calculation.
Subtotal Prime Consultant – At the bottom of the page, indicate the sum of the direct labor,
overhead, direct expenses and fixed fee as calculated on this page for the Prime Consultant.
Sub-consultant Total(s) – List the total estimated costs for each sub-consultant, if any. Each subconsultant must also have a separate page itemizing these costs.
Total Estimated Costs – Indicate the sum of the total estimated costs for the prime consultant and
all sub-consultants.
DERIVATION OF COST PROPOSAL
PRIME CONSULTANT NAME
Federal ID #00-000000
ESTIMATED DIRECT LABOR
Classification
ABC Position
DEF Position
Estimated
Person-hours
0,000
0,000
Total Estimated Hours
00,000
Hourly
Rate
$00.00
$00.00
x
=
Total Estimated Labor
Labor
Costs
$00,000.00
$00,000.00
$000,000.00
ESTIMATED OVERHEAD
$000,000.00
x
000.00%
Total Overhead
=
$000,000.00
(Total Estimated Labor)
ESTIMATED DIRECT EXPENSES
(Listed by Item at Estimated Actual Cost to you – NO MARKUP)
Expense #1
Expense #2
Expense #3
$0,000
$0,000
$0,000
Total Direct Expenses
$00,000
FIXED FEE
$0,000,000.00
x
00%
(Total Estimated Labor + Overhead)
=
Total Fixed Fee
SUBTOTAL – PRIME CONSULTANT
$000,000
$00,000,000
(Sum Totals: Labor, Overhead, Direct Expenses, Fixed Fee)
Total ABC Sub-consultant
Total DEF Sub-consultant
$000,000
$000,000
TOTAL ESTIMATED COSTS
(Sum Totals: Prime & Subs)
$00,000,000.00
-1-
DERIVATION OF COSTS – SUB-CONSULTANT(S):
Use the attached sample layout for the sub-consultant(s) proposed costs. A separate sheet for
derivation of costs must be submitted for each sub-consultant in the same manner as described
above for the prime consultant.
DERIVATION OF COST PROPOSAL
SUB-CONSULTANT NAME
(Submit a separate page for each Sub-consultant)
Federal ID #00-000000
ESTIMATED DIRECT LABOR
Classification
ABC Position
DEF Position
Estimated
Person-hours
0,000
0,000
Total Estimated Hours
00,000
Hourly
Rate
$00.00
$00.00
x
=
Total Estimated Labor
Labor
Costs
$00,000.00
$00,000.00
$000.000.00
ESTIMATED OVERHEAD
$000,000.00
x
000.00%
Total Overhead
=
$000,000.00
(Total Estimated Labor)
ESTIMATED DIRECT EXPENSES
(Listed by Item at Estimated Actual Cost to you – NO MARKUP)
Expense #1
Expense #2
Expense #3
$00,000
$0,000
$ 000
Total Direct Expenses
$00,000
FIXED FEE
$0,000,000.00
x
00%
(Total Estimated Labor + Overhead)
=
Total Fixed Fee
TOTAL ESTIMATED COSTS
$000,000
$00,000,000
(Sum Totals: Labor, Overhead, Direct Expenses, Fixed Fee)
-2-